HOW TO DRAFT A REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IN CIVIL SUIT

DRAFT A REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IN CIVIL SUIT

Mr. ABC, s/o XYZ, filed O.S. No. 91/2001 against Mr. MNO, s/o PQR, seeking a declaration of his absolute ownership over the suit schedule property. The ground for the suit was that Mr. ABC’s father had purchased the land in question from the defendant by a registered Sale Deed dated March 13, 1998. After the death of his father, Mr. ABC became the owner in possession of the land. When this was the situation, the defendant, Mr. MNO, started claiming that he never executed the sale deed, alleging that his signature on the deed dated March 13, 1998, was forged, and was attempting to sell the property to a third person. Therefore, Mr. ABC filed the original suit, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge by a Judgment and Decree dated May 9, 2022. Aggrieved by this decision, he filed Regular Appeal No. 21/2022 before the Senior Civil Judge, Tumkur, which was also dismissed by a Judgment and Decree dated May 5, 2023. Mr. ABC now wants to prefer a Regular Second Appeal (RSA) before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
(Memorandum of Civil Petition under Section 100 of CPC)

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL JUNIOR DIVISION CIVIL
COURT AT TUMKUR

O.S. NO. 91/2021

IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR DIVISION CIVIL
COURT AT TUMKUR

R.A NO. 21/2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

R.S.A No. 114/2025

BETWEENRANK IN

Trial Court  Appellate Court  High Court

Mr. ABC,
S/O XYZ,
Aged about 30 years,
R/AT ,
Tumkur,
Karnataka-572103 ………. PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT

AND

Mr. MNO,
S/O PQR,
Aged about ,
R/AT ,
Tumkur,
Karnataka-572103……….DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT

MEMORANDUM OF REGULAR SECOND APPEAL U/S 100 R/W
ORDER XLII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908

The Appellant above named most humbly submits as follows: –

1. The address of the Appellant for the purpose of service of notice, summons, etc., of this Hon’ble Court is correctly furnished in the cause title. They may also be notified through his counsel,  (Advocate Name), Advocate,having office at           , Bengaluru-560009.
2. The address of the Respondent for similar purposes is also mentioned in the cause title.
3. The Appellant is presenting this Regular Second Appeal before this Hon’ble Court, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tumkur, in R.A. No. 21/2022. The original suit, O.S. No. 91/2001, which was filed by the Appellant before the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tumkur, was dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

4. The Plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 91/2001 against the Defendant, seeking a declaration of title over the suit schedule property. The Plaintiff’s claim is based on a registered sale deed on 13.03.1998, executed by the Defendant in favour of the Plaintiff’s father. Upon the death of the Plaintiff’s father, the Plaintiff succeeded to the suit schedule property as his legal heir and remained in possession. However, the Defendant denied executing the sale deed, alleging that his signature was forged, and attempted to sell the suit schedule property to third parties. The Trial Court dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 09.05.2022, holding that the Plaintiff failed to establish the validity of the sale deed. Aggrieved by the dismissal, the Plaintiff preferred a Regular Appeal in R.A. No. 21/2022 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tumkur, which was also dismissed by judgment and decree dated 05.05.2023. Being dissatisfied with the concurrent findings of the trial courts, the Plaintiff is now filing this Regular Second Appeal before the Hon’ble High Court.
5. In response to the Plaintiff’s claims, the Defendant filed a written statement submitting that the suit for declaration and injunction is baseless, as the alleged sale deed dated 13.03.1998 is forged and was never executed by the Defendant. The Defendant denies having signed the said sale deed and asserts that the Plaintiff has failed to prove its validity or examine any attesting witnesses. Furthermore, the Plaintiff has not produced any supporting revenue records or evidence of possession. The Defendant maintains that he is in lawful possession of the property and contends that the suit has been filed based on false claims.

GROUNDS

6. The Plaintiff’s father purchased the suit schedule property through a registered sale deed on 13.03.1998, which is a valid and legally binding document under the Registration Act, 1908. The presumption of genuineness under Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, applies to such registered documents.
7. The Plaintiff can establish that consideration for the sale was duly paid and the sale deed was acted upon, which affirms its authenticity and legality.
8. The Defendant failed to challenge the sale deed promptly after its execution in 1998 and only raised objections years later, after the death of the Plaintiff’s father. This inordinate delay in disputing the transaction raises serious doubts about the credibility of the Defendant’s counterclaims.
9. When a registered sale deed exists and was acted upon, the burden shifts to the Defendant to rebut the legal presumption of valid transfer. In the absence of a strong rebuttal, the Plaintiff’s title should prevail.
10. Upon the death of the Plaintiff’s father, the Plaintiff became the legal heir and lawfully succeeded to the property. The Plaintiff remained in possession without interruption, asserting his ownership rights.
11. The Defendant, who alleges forgery, bears the burden of proving it. If the Defendant has not submitted any credible handwriting expert opinion or contradictory documentary evidence, his claim lacks merit.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the Appellant most humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:

1. Allow this Regular Second Appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.05.2023 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Tumkur, in R.A No. 21/2022;
2. Call for the records in O.S. No.91/2001; and
3. Grant any other relief that this Hon’ble court may deem fit in the interest of justice and equity.

Place: Bengaluru

Date:ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT

VERIFICATION

I, ABC, S/O XYZ, Plaintiff in the above case, do hereby verify that the contents at paragraphs 1 to 11 of the plaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

PLACE:BangalorePLAINTIFF

DATE: